The Racial Demands Of The GOP

After criticizing Rick Perry for being "insensitive" regarding the name of a ranch apparently owned by Perry, Herman Cain, the African American former Godfather's Pizza honcho came to understand that the only acceptable claims of racial insensitivity from African Americans can be made against Democrats:

I think that Herman Cain hurts himself by joining in on these attacks. His big appeal is that he’s not just another black race-card-playing politician. Climbing on board with the Post’s hit piece suggests that actually, he is.

Cain has learned his lesson:

What Cain forgot was that the only acceptable "playing of the race card" is directed at Democrats. Matt Yglesias notes:

[I]f Perry did do anything racist, it’s because he used to be a Democrat (heh). Yet the real victims here are white people, and once upon a time Herman Cain looked like he might be a hero to the white race. Now we see, though, that he’s just another black politician being all “racist racist racist racist” to get ahead just like the rest of them.

But I remember a time that Republicans were all for "playing the race card":

Speaking for me only

< Pizza Delivery Guy Calls Cops on Customer For Smoking Pot | Obama Press Secretary Questioned On Occupy Wall Street >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:46:34 AM EST

    Rhetorical question: was there any (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    move by the DNC or any other national body of Dems. to quell the "racist card" playing re Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment, or Bill clinton's "Jesse Jackson won SC twice," comment?  No, didn't think so.

    Especially as (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    The BC comment was not racist.  Even Jesse Jackson said so.

    BC was asked by a reporter if he was surprised that Obsma, a black man, won the SC primary.  He answered accurately that, no, because Jesse Jackson had won it twice.  The mental gymnastics some had to do to make that a racist comment were worthy of Nadia Comineci numbers.


    On topic ... excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    Off topic (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    They gave him a choice (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:54:46 AM EST
    that, or the nuclear option:

    Unleashing Limbaugh, forcing Cain to publicly
    grovel and  kiss his fat a__  ah, ring.  

    My spouse said (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    that if he were black there is no way he would ever be anything other than a Democrat.  He doesn't understand how anyone who is black can desire to be a Republican.  This feels awful though, on the road to getting to the desired contender Romney I don't want to see what they are capable of doing and will do to Cain.

    The latest polls (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    have Romney up by 10 over Perry and Cain.

    The masters are getting scared and may just be sweeping aside the obstacles for who they really want, the N.J. swamp dog.


    Time to review (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    Romney's belief in the White Horse (not House) Prophecy.....

    Romney has a hot line to Salt Lake unlike any other Mormon in politics.....I wonder to what extent that will come up.


    He's no dummy (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    he'll wait for the opportine time to make his "Kennedy/Vatican" speech.

    It may work (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    and didn't he already do the JFK speech last time?

    But, do not believe it....Romney was tapped to replace the head of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee.....when he grew up in Michigan, lived in Massachusetts and only spent 4 years at BYU??

    ......Romney is Mormon Royalty and will never, ever cross the LDS leadership in Salt Lake.

    I have spent a fair amount of time reading up on LDS theololgy and Church History....and live in the West and have LDS relatives.......

    Don't be fooled by the mild mannered and polite demeanor....This is a very, very socially conservative group.....


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    like this one bit. Having a religious litmus test is a bad thing. It's the same thing they say about Catholics. Look at Obama's minister, he wasn't exactly "mainstream".

    Sure Romney has problems but as far as I've seen he's not going to use the government to mandate everybody behave like an LDS unlike Perry who has literally passed legislation in Texas mandating a radical evangelical agenda.

    Believe me, living here in GA, I can spot a religious fundamentalist a mile away.


    Don't stick your head in the sand (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    Active Mormons are diffrent than Baptists but no less dogmatic and often more socially conservative.

    And not all Mormons are alike but Romney in particular is very closely tied to LDS leadership.....


    So we (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    should never have another Catholic president because they might do what the Pope wants? How about an Episcopalian? They might do what the Presiding Bishop wants? A Southern Baptist because they might obey the President of the Southern Baptist Convention? You're basically advocating for the same religious litmus test that the GOP has. And Obama has done everything that Rev. Wright wanted him to do. Right? He called Rev. Wright his mentor? How is that different than what you're saying about Romney? I fail to see the difference.

    There's plenty to criticize Romney on but saying that he's going to obey his Church Elders over the people of this country goes beyond the pale with me.


    Not just becasuse he is Mormon (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    but because of his connections and ties to Salt Lake leadership.   His family is a long standing well known, Mormon family going back generations.  

    The LDS Church was probably responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment and was responsible for Prop 8 here in California.  Romney will never cross the Church on issues like that.

    He is not jack Mormon or a publicly doubting Mormon like Huntsman.  That is why he sounds different notes on social issues imo.  I would have no problem with Huntsman on this score.

    Devout Mormons believe in the Church leaders much more than Catholics believe in Papal infallibility.

    The Council of Twelve who govern the Church are believed to be apostles in the mold of Peter, James and John.  The current President is believed to be a prophet akin to Moses and obedience to his views is actively taught.  The Prophet's statements trump all scripture.   Ignoring what Church leaders say is like ignoring God.  This principle is inculcated from birth.

    Mormons' anti-government views go back to Polygamy and the Reynolds decision.

    Mitt is a dyed in the wool Mormon and will not reject these views.

    If you want to analogize to Catholicism, this is not like a run of the mill Catholic but like someone who is a member of Opus Dei.

    How did Romney get appointed to head the Salt Lake Olympics with very flimsly (overt) ties to Utah, having gone to BYU decades before?  His ties to the Church......

    Mitt is not a moderate.....And, clearly this issue will not be discussed very often because it makes many uncomfortable, but don't be fooled.



    Nothing like painting with a broad brush (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    It's not okay to be bigoted against black or brown people, but it IS ok to be bigoted against someone's religion, especially when you have no idea WHAT he really thinks about his own personal faith.  Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Romney out there all the time talking about he's going to implement policy the way the LDS Church tells him to. And not all Mormons think in lockstep, just as all Catholics don't, or all Lutherans, or all agnostics.

    He doesn't discuss his religion and in fact, during one of the 2008 debates, in response to a question about how could a Mormon get elected, he said this:

    "You know, I just don't believe that people in this country are going to choose their -- their candidate based on which church he or she goes to. I just don't believe that. "And you know, polls ask people a lot of questions, and my faith isn't terribly well known around this country, but I don't think for a minute the American people are going to say, you know what, we're not going to vote for this guy for a secular position because of his church. I just don't believe it. "I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States that the founders meant just that. And I don't believe for a minute that Republicans, or Americans for that matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said it's as un-American as anything you can think of. "And so I believe that I'll ultimately get the nomination. I can't be sure of that, but I'm -- I'm pretty confident. And I believe in a head-to-head with Hillary Clinton the differences in our perspectives on how to get America going again and how to get us on the right track are as different as night and day. She takes her inspiration from the Europe of old, Big Brother, big government and big taxes. I take mine from Republican ideals: small government, small taxes, individual freedom. I believe that free American people are the source of America's greatness. "And so I don't think you're going to see religion figuring into this race after people have had a chance to get to know all the candidates."[

    No, you can argue with his policies, but to keep harping on his religion, is just as bigoted as the Tea Partiers who harp on Obama's race.


    Ignore at your peril (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    Sure not all Mormons are alike but Mormons like Mitt Romney with their personal connections to Church leadership, different story......

    You would do well to study how heavily Mormons teach "obedience" to Church leaders.....In fact, obedience to Church leaders is a requirement for obtaining a Temple Recommend, which is the standard indicia for a believing Mormon in good standing.....


    WOW! MKS is one of the first to (none / 0) (#82)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    pile on with accusations and labels of Islamophobia then turns on a dime and posts these comments regarding both Romney and the LDS.

    Just Wow.


    Actually, you should be pleased (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    that Romney is a social conservative.

    I am not saying the Romney eats live kittens in his basement.....

    What I am saying is that Romney is a social conservative.   His Mormon background and his relationship to the Church fill in the picture.

    Like being a member of Opus Dei.....He is not just Mormon but part of the Mormon heirarchy.  


    Romney was Stake President for (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    9 years before he ran for the Senate.

    He has been one of the top lay leaders of the Mormon Church--not just a member.

    It appears he was being groomed for top Church leadership until he went into politics.....


    No, but he does... (none / 0) (#94)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    strap the family dog to the roof of the car.  

    The Mormons are spending a ton of cash "building the brand" with TV commercials in the Denver market.  Just a coincidence or an effort to boast the Mittster?


    His father crossed the LDS leadership (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    See George Romney and support for Civil Rights Movement, welcoming MLK to Michigan march, etc.

    Mitt's wife, while now a Mormon, was raised by a father who kind if turned away from religion, although Ann Romney called herself Episcopalian before she converted.  Why do you think he's just not posturing until he can knock out the crazies like Perry and Bachmann until he gets the nomination?


    No, supporting Civl Rights (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    did not cross LDS leadership back in the day.....Ezra Taft Benson may be an exception but he was never Church President and his views were not accepted regarding MLK.

    This is a convoluted and lengthy discussion but short version:  The Church supported equal rights under the law but not giving Afrian Americans the priesthood.

    He is not posturing because he has thrown enough hints out there.....His entire background suggests a true, blue Mormon championing the Protect Marriage group here in California.....His former gay rights foray long since abandoned....

    Mitt knows Boston so he knows how to cloak it somewhat.

    Ann Romney converted and will follow her husband.

    Romney is different than Huntsman and the Udalls.  The Udalls are no longer believing Mormons...And Huntsman has publicly become quite a squish on still believing in Mormon orthodoxy.  Not Mitt.  In Iowa last time, Romney said he was no Mormon theologian but when questioned by Evangelicals gave very detailed answers about the Mormon belief that Christ will return and rule from Missouri.....way deep into the weeds of Mormon theology.....


    The Self hatred Has to be... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    ... so deep that any black republican President would be something the black community would fear.  He would make David Duke look like Ghandi.

    Even Obama has basically done nothing noteworthy, and he, I am told, has a D behind his name.


    So results don't count (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Even Obama has basically done nothing noteworthy, and he, I am told, has a D behind his name.

    Okey dokey, thanks for confirming what I knew.


    Jim (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    You pulled that out of context, but I can say that I don't disagree with your misrepresentation.

    The context being the black community.


    I like Cain (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    and he's the new Clarence Thomas in many respects.

    If he's nominated I will vote for him.


    That's an endorsement? (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    mind your manners! (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    There are designated, restricted parking spots all across the country for people like Jim.

    Avert your eyes, but show some restraint.


    Yes, very impertinent of me (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    I should know my place.

    But the assertion that being like Clarence Thomas is a good thing....eew.....words not possible here.....


    Jim, Always With the Jokes... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    ... a black republican Presidential candidate.  That is the funniest thing I have read this week.

    Cain, if there ever was a... how do I put it...

    How do you know the republican party is mad as hell at their choices ?  The black guy wins a straw pol.

    They toss in one every cycle as a measure of the parties temperament.  And that is why all eyes are on Christie.


    Well, we had a black (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:16:22 PM EST
    SecState...a black NSA...and the first black Repub Senator....not to forget CT.

    And yeah, I know it is hard to understand how Cain had the desire and nerve to leave the reservation... but he did and he did.

    Cain is winning because he has taken positions that the people relate to.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:23:55 PM EST
    but you're talking about the "old GOP" not the present one, the party that Strom built.

    I always find it amazing that the GOP has to go back 50 years and yes, Eisenhower was very good in this area for the most part. I believe even MLK said he voted for Eisenhower. But it's not the GOP of today. Today the GOP is the party of the Southern Strategy and radical evangelicals.


    I had no idea that George Bush was (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:35:47 PM EST
    the old GOP.

    I mean, the things I learn from you.


    Oh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:40:49 AM EST
    would that be the George Bush that signed Teri's Law?

    I find it interesting that a lot of Republicans really don't know about the GOP's modern day history or they actually agree with what they have been doing but pretend not to know.


    Teri's law? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:59:48 AM EST
    Trying to reframe and dodge, eh?

    Jim. When GWB Ran in 2000... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 08:59:22 AM EST
     ...Perry Backed Gore, no point really, but that's it's been 12 years ago, which in politics is a lifetime.

    And my joke was about a Presidential Candidate.  Not appointments, one takes tens of millions, the other, just one person.  I do find it humorous that you know this off the top of your head.  You must be thinking the same thing.

    You listed two people in all of history, one not an actual pol.  Come on, you have to see if for what it is.  If R's are so race friendly, why the lack of diversity in general, coincidence ?


    If that's your argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    Be ause he's like Clarence Thomas, then that's a bad argument to make as Thomas is an example of all that is wrong with politics in this country.

    I agree (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:17:03 PM EST
    A political lynching is terrible.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    Don't know much about the guy, buy willing to cut him some slack.....for the time being.

    Any ethnic minority, by definition, has limited options. Maybe he simply saw more openings in the Republican Party at this time. I mean, Bloomberg showed how its done.

    Gotta study up a little bit and see if he's bought into their sickness, or just using them?


    Subscribes to the "sickness" (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    hook, line and sinker.  He's no Michael Steele, he's a fervent believer.

    I just can't stand it. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    In once corner, we've got Melissa Harris-Perry claiming that the real problem Obama faces in getting re-elected is liberal electoral racism, with whites holding blacks to a higher standard - and using Bill Clinton - of course - to "prove" her point (it was a little like reading a better-written ABG comment, actually).  I don't know, it seems to me that when your entire campaign is about hope, change, transformation, and healing, and people buy into that by voting for you,  you've set your own standards, as the "salvific" president, and people have a right to hold you to it - whether you are black, white, or purple with green polka-dots.

    Now, we've got a black Republican being constrained from raising the "R" word because, well, I can't think of anything that makes sense.  Because Republicans think that if they don't call each other out on it, it doesn't exist within their party?  Someone needs to tell Romney - he's not letting go.  Or is Romney off the hook because he's white, and we all know that a claim of racism isn't valid unless it comes from one white person against another white person?  Or is it because Republicans know that it's much more fun to watch Democrats devolve into the kind of ridiculous logic evidenced by Melissa Harris-Perry, and which lit up the media and the blogosphere in the last Democratic presidential primary race?  

    Meanwhile, it's such a convenient distraction from the stuff that has the ability and power to affect hundreds of millions of people: policies advocated, advanced and legislated  Track records.  Jobs.  Economic policy.  The Constitution.

    I can't stand it.

    Off topic imo (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    I understand that the question of race arises in both, but your comment seems forced here.

    Respectfully disagree, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    What caused me to respond as I did was the point you made, specifically, "(w)hat Cain forgot was that the only acceptable "playing of the race card" is directed at Democrats."  Which is what made me think of the Melissa Harris-Perry piece that zeroed in on "liberal electoral racism."

    I do not mean to belittle or be dismissive of the truth that racism does still exist - along with its cousin, sexism.  And there's nothing like the political stage to see them displayed in all their ugliness.  It's just that I can think of a lot of reasons why Rick Perry is unfit for the office he seeks, and I hope it does not make me a bad person that "he's a racist" isn't at the top of that list.

    I guess I am just projecting into the next year and understanding that however ugly the last presidential contest was, this one is going to be exponentially more vicious and vile, and lost in all of the ugliness will be the issues that matter to everyday people - like finding a job, paying the bills, trying to live on retirement income that may be in jeopardy, being forced to choose - still - between rent and food, between food and medicine.


    I think a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    Are to the point that when the charge of "Racism!" rears it's ugly head, they tune out.  It's a huge problem in our society, but it is not getting the attention it deserves because politically, it's a charge that's so overused and many times can't be taken seriously.

    So, false assertions of racism (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    are a greater problme than actual racism.....

    I am not all that convinced.....



    No (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    but false accusations weaken the arguments when the real racism rears it's ugly head.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    I thought that was obvious, but apparently not to everyone.

    But the name on the rock on Perry's (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    hunting grounds is the real thing, no?

    If so, why the foucs on false accusations?


    Why focus on (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Some place he went almost three decades ago that wasn't his?

    Was it dumb? Sure.  But in the struggle for racial equality, this is stretching to find a story.


    I thought (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    he was still going there recently.

    The "three decades ago" was when it was supposedly painted over....

    A cavalier attitude towards that racial epithet is not good.....


    Maybe because (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    He isn't going to be president.

    You ever tell an ethnic joke? I'm gonna bet you have, but I don't think that should be held against you in getting a promotion, unless you told one recently at work.  In the grand scheme of all that is wrong with Rick Perry, THIS is the worst thing we can criticize him for?


    It is like being a member (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    of an all white or all male Country Club......

    Can I do that and not be a louse?   Maybe, but I wouldn't try.

    Presidents have to set a standard on issues of race....

    No, it's not the worst thing to criticize him about, but it counts.....


    According to the Post story (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    there are people who saw it not very many years ago.  It's at an entrance to the property that isn't so convenient to use anymore very much, so "sightings" haven't been frequent.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    speaking specifically to Perry's situation here just in general.

    Doesn't have to be a racist (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    Just blind to racism, or uncommitted to eliminating it.

    Going to ranch with such a name is not good and shows a lack of respect and committment to eliminating racism.....A President has got to be better than tha.  


    I heard Donna Brazile say (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    Perry was not a racist.

    But hey! What does she know? We have you to keep us straight.


    You heard wrong ... again (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    Brazile did not say "Perry was not a racist".  Her comments on this issue, as she posted on Twitter, show that she merely doesn't want to get bogged down in the issue:

    Another sickening distraction. Gov. Rick Perry family's hunting camp still known to many by old racially charged name -


    Will Gov Rick Perry's explanation abt the insensitive words written on a rock at a place he leased be sufficient to move on? I hope so. Why?


    I prefer to discuss the President's jobs bill, the wall street protestors and the upcoming march to reclaim the American Dream for all.


    Rick Perry needs to explain. Let's use it as a teachable moment to become post racial. Do not attack or stereotype anyone.Agree?


    All in Presidential politics is unfair unless you're the one on the attack. Interesting Cain is being attacked for just speaking the truth.



    I heard her say he wasn't a racist. (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    Take it or leave it.

    I don't give a *878qw7656e4 what you think, write or believe.

    Have a nice life.


    You "hear" a lot of things ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:26:15 PM EST
    ... no one else does.  I'm sure such a quote would be easy to find ...

    ... if it actually happened.

    BTW - Even if Brazile actually said it, so what?  She has her reasons to want to focus on other issues and be diplomatic.  I can also understand why others have no problem with Perry leasing a place named "N1ggerhe@d".


    She said it (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:01:41 AM EST

    Link? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:28:07 AM EST
    Google's easy, Jim.

    You can do it.


    Gratuitous (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    The issue was the Republicans......

    I really wish I hadn't clicked ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    ... on that.

    So if Obama lost in 2008, the only possible explanation was "electoral racism", whatever the he// that is.  If he loses in 2012, however, it's the result of a more subtle "liberal electoral racism" and their "willingness to abandon a black candidate"?


    How about a third option ... "Hope" and "Change" make great campaign slogans, but a lousy economy coupled with a long trail of broken promises and 3 years of caving to the GOP make for a lousy candidate?


    That (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    article conveniently glosses over the fact that Bill Clinton had a good economy to run on.

    There was a lot wrong with that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    article; maybe some day we will see the end of the "but, but...Clinton!" rationale, but I'm not putting money on it.

    Cain (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    started out well but then started groveling. Too bad. I had this conversation with another poster today as to why African Americans don't vote for the GOP and this is an example of why.

    It seems the GOP is really, really trying to make themselves as toxic as can be done.

    Perry didn't own the ranch. (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    Just for a matter of correct reporting.

    He should not have gone there (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:31:46 PM EST

    Go somewhere else......


    So you're the TL participant (none / 0) (#36)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    police today?  Comical.

    No, not you, Perry (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:54:33 PM EST
    Perry should have gone hunting at a different ranch......

    Ok, thanks for clarifiy. (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    However, all reports are that he never went there when this rock had the offending label.  

    A 23 or 27 year story about something he had no direct control over much less ownership (as BTD stated) is a complete non-starter.

    I don't support Perry but this rock story is a complete waste of air.


    It sounds like the paint (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    was not all that effective at covering the epithet.

    And the good ole' boys thought it was a big joke.

    He had an ownership interest in the ranch.....

    And, yes, he always had
    "control"--he could always go hunting somewhere else.


    I know, its really creepy, isn't it? (none / 0) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    Every time I go to my folks house for dinner, and pass the cross on fire, I get these weird look from all the neighbors.

    What do they want me to do, shoot my parents?

    i mean, sheesh, get a life already.


    Just avert your eyes (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    A burning cross--just all in good fun....

    You and BTD are in correct (none / 0) (#54)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    with this position:

    He had an ownership interest in the ranch.

    That's incorrect (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    I think you need to read the Post story about this because you're pooh-poohing what's in your imagination, not what the story reports.

    From the Post story (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    A link to read the LEASE document.

    Oh, they had control over the rock (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    If they could paint over it, then they could have painted over it with something a little more permanent than whitewash that washes away with the rain.....

    They didn't try very hard to get rid of it.


    No, "all reports" do not ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    ... indicate that "he never went there when this rock had the offending label".  To the contrary,;

    Perry's version of events differs in many respects from the recollections of seven people, interviewed by The Washington Post, who spoke in detail of their memories of seeing the rock with the name at various points during the years that Perry was associated with the property through his father, partners or his signature on a lease.


    BTW - He didn't own the land, but he did have an ownership interest in it (leasehold).


    Go read the LEASE at the link (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    The document title is: RECREATIONAL LEASE AGREEMENT.  It was not a LEASEHOLD but a simple lease for hunting purposes.  It clearly states that there are other leases of the same property (oil and grazing) along with the right of the actual owner & family to also continue to use the property.

    Again, no ownership.


    So if (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    he joined a country club that banned minorities from joining (saying for example that what you're saying is right and I'm not saying it is) and didn't have any ownership in that country club, it would be all right with you? That's pretty much what you're saying.

    In the end I don't think it matters much. We should start Perry countdown and see how much longer he stays in the race. Every week there's some noxious revelation about him along with his poor debate performance where he should be called "Not ready for Prime time Perry"


    So if frogs had wings... (none / 0) (#77)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    We can make up strawman "what ifs" until the cows come home.

    The initial and specific point is that he did not have ownership and all the rights/controls it grants.  BTD and a couple others have tried to make that false point.

    As I stated earlier and jbindc has also stated this is a non-story, regardless how many anti-corollary stretches are attempted.

    Again, I don't support Perry and don't think he will be the nominee and all the lily gilding is ridiculous.


    Trying (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    a little intellectual honesty. Like you take MKS rightfully to task for his anti-LDS crap above but you're doing the same thing here. You're trying to twist it into pretzels.

    No doubt Perry is downright creepy but that might not stop the GOP from nominating him. He's a tea party darling after all.


    A "recreational lease" IS a leasehold (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    ... and a leasehold IS an "ownership interest" in real property.  A lease/leasehold gives the lessee ("tenant") the right to use or possess the land as described in the lease agreement, but it is form "estate", or "ownership interest" in the property.  It doesn't need to be exclusive to be an "ownership interest" - different parties can hold different estates in the same property (i.e. leaseholds - oil lease, timber lease, grazing lease - fee simple, life estate, right of reversion, etc.).  The lessee does not "own" the land as the term is used in the lay sense of the word, but a "leasehold" is an ownership interest.

    Regardless - pretty interesting that Perry he had the right to paint over/turn over the rock at some point during his lease.

    But good job at ignoring the fact that seven people contradict Perry's account of when he decided to paint over the offensive word.


    And if 20 people (none / 0) (#87)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    then said his side of the story is the truth?  

    It was a simple lease for hunting rights, period.  To attempt to project it to an ownership position is ludicrous.


    "If?" "IF?!?" ... Heh (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    I was just pointing out both of your false statements.  While Perry does not "own" the property;

    1.  His lease of the property is an ownership interest, and

    2.  "All reports do not indicate "he never went there when this rock had the offending label".

    I like the "if" strawman, particularly since Perry is the only one making the claim that the "offending label" was removed @ 30 years ago, before he began going there - other than you, of course.  Many others who actually were there, including employees and supporters of Perry, acknowledged the "offending label remained there until some time relatively recently.

    BTW - Frankly, the ownership issue doesn't seem particularly relevant, except to the extent that someone was claiming Perry painted the rock - which, of course, no one is - or, to the extent (arguably) that he had no power to remove the offensive term - which he apparently did, according to his own story.  If someone tries to sell me (or lease me) a car with the word "N1ggerhe@d" on it, I'm d@mn well not gonna lease the car.


    Hey "lawyer" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Rojas on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:21:01 PM EST
    If someone granted you a lease to hunt for seeds in the carpet of their Lexus do think that gives you the right to paint the damn thing because you might find the color objectionable?
    A link to the lease documents were posted. Is this your considered legal opinion after reviewing those documents on the rights of the Perrys to make changes to the property? Or are you just showing your ass again?

    Actually, I don't (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:35:57 PM EST
    Perry (or his father) might have violated the terms of his lease by painting over the rock - they likely did, unless they got the permission of the lessor before doing so.

    So what?

    Did you read my posts to BTAL?  My points were that: 1) While Perry did not own the property, he had an ownership interest in the property by virtue of his leasehold, and 2) "all reports" do not indicate he "never went there when this rock had the offending label".  To the contrary, several people (including employees and Perry supporters) indicate the opposite.

    My other point is I wouldn't pay money to someone to lease their Lexus if it was painted with "N1ggerhe@d" on the door.  YMMV.

    No idea what you mean by the comment re" my @ss.  

    Nice to know you're thinking about it, though ...


    Mitt v. Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    I think when Perry announces he won't run shortly and with Cain (who will never in a million years win the GOP primary) is tied with Perry, I think we have our answer.

    Obama's team should start pounding Romney now and focus almost entirely on him.

    Romney will be more socially conservative (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:52:37 PM EST
    than many think....

    He pandered to liberals in Massachusetts but will never do so again.....

    Being a devout Mormon means he will be very, very socially conservative.....Harry Reid is an anomaly and not cut from the same LDS cloth as Romney.....


    Perry (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    has already announced that he's running. I guess you mean announces that he's dropping out? I don't think that will happen until the first part of next year.

    I'm hoping (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    there is still going to be some trouble for the Mittster in the GOP primaries.  I still want to see GOP candidates slam Romney on his previous pro-choice stance, his health care bill, etc.

    You know what (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    though? By doing that kind of stuff they are making him more acceptable to the general public at the voting booth.

    let's wait and see (none / 0) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    what Christie is gonna do.

    should know this week....maybe even today.


    Christie (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    is an implosion waiting to happen. He's NJ's version of Rick Perry.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:21:26 PM EST
    I can't stand Christie, but he's a lot smarter than Perry.  He does have a tendency to be less guarded (and potentially more offensive) in his responses when he's confronted, but also stays away from the social/religious right issues.

    I think he'd lose appeal among the Tea Party and Religious Right voters when they know more about him, but I think (like Romney) he'd be stronger in a GE.


    BTW - Try to be careful - using Chris Christie and the word "implosion" in the same sentence.  :)


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    well, that's kind of faint praise because apparently Rick Perry is as dumb as a box of rocks. Being better than Perry really isn't saying a lot. I find it interesting that the GOP is really trying to run away from the evangelicals that are the base of the party. Or at least that's the message that I get from them trying to get him to run. Obviously he'd be stronger in the GE simply because he doesn't pander to the right wing crazies.

    I think his corrupt mall project and his penchant for flying tax payer funded helicopter to his kids games while preaching austerity to everyone else won't play any better with the general electorate than Obama's austerity crap.

    Yeah, and his "Jersey" personality is another thing--but that might not be a negative in the GE. People might want someone crass this time not someone who preaches bi-partisanship and unicorns.


    Christie has once again announced (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    that he will not run in 2012.

    TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday announced he would not run for president, refusing to bow to pressure from GOP donors, fans and luminaries clamoring for another option in the search for a strong Republican to challenge President Barack Obama next fall.

    "Now is not my time," Christie told reporters at the New Jersey Statehouse.


    Good move for him (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    This is kind of funny (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:17:35 PM EST
    ...he added that the Republican Party's eventual nominee may want to think twice before picking him as a running mate.

    "I don't know that there is anybody in America that would necessarily think that my personality is best suited for being number two," Christie told reporters at a press conference in Trenton.

    "I just don't think I have the personality to be asked," he explained. "I mean, seriously. Can you imagine? You know, the guy would probably want to get a food taster." link

    Thank gawd his last name only starts with a C. ;o)


    Threading the needle (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Cain is (or trying to) - like many minorities who find themselves stuck between a rock and hard place when these conundrums come up.  That he's a republican and jammed up really makes no difference.  While it's fun to poke the GOP over this, Cain's still a black man dealing w/the assumptions made about him because of his race.

    He had a real opportunity (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    to stand out and gain promimence but kissed El Rushbo's...err, ring.

    Why a less inflamatory title here than (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    at DK?  

    Don't need as much (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    to stir the pot here?

    It's the game (none / 0) (#96)
    by loveed on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:25:40 PM EST
     Why do anyone fall for this crap.

    1. The rock should have been removed a long time ago (it's a joke painting over it with white paint).He is the governor after all.
    2. This is about who will have control and the power of the republican party.
    3. This defense of Perry is laughable.
    4. Only the media wanted Christi to run.
    5. I was enjoying Cain run,because race had nothing to do with it.(we will see if the rest of the repubs feel the same way,I think his number will go up).

     This election is to important,to distracted by such trivial things.